2: there are certain architectural elements that people hate *so much* that they blind people to doing a real cost-benefit analysis.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3: the problem is so bad, they think, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, to rewrite away from them.
Show this thread -
4: the "billion dollar mistake" implies that. It's so costly that it's worth any cost to rewrite away from it.
Show this thread -
5: My point is that there are worse costs, and you should still evaluate the worst architectures in terms of them.
Show this thread -
6: I'm definitively *not* saying null is no big deal.https://twitter.com/wycats/status/728985072586526720 …
Show this thread -
7: I'm on the Rust core team, and have rewritten code to Rust.https://twitter.com/LisaDanz/status/513428742786387968 …
Show this thread -
8/8: I just don't think "getting rid of null" is *alone* a justification for losing months or years of feature development. Count your costs
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
people who are saying this is wrong don't realise you're quoting the person who *put null in to the language in the first place*? ;)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.